Cack_Conroe
Well-known member
Hey everyone, I'm so sorry for how long it has taken me to get back to you and leave you all waiting. I live a very long way from Manchester and had a funny turn on the way home, and have been sleeping for most of the past couple of days. I just keep falling back to sleep, then in between trying to catch up on missed jobs.
It was me that Janet had a go at (after I defended her on here the other day! Little does she know!). I'm a little bit worried you will all be disappointed after all the anticipation, it's not that dramatic and was quite brief! It was just her entitlement and hostility, considering who she is. There's a bit of context for why I think I was targeted, but I will get to that later in the post. It feels like I should talk about court before talking about myself too much, so scroll down if you want to skip to Janet content - but don't get too excited, it's not that interesting! Much more "interesting" is the very well known trial watcher who has taken up residence in Janet's rectum, "looking after" her and managing to get themself in the position of being officially considered a "friend or family", so getting guaranteed front row seats in court.
The NGs
I spoke to a lot of the NGs, and actually liked a few of them. Some fit the stereotypes, and some don't - I think the mainstream media articles have done one hell of a lot of damage. I will save the NGs for another post, because this is already too long.
---
I also met some fellow Tattlers @Wine o'clock, @Dolly Daydream, a couple who don't have usernames, and of course @SarahG300 back last year.
It was me that Janet had a go at (after I defended her on here the other day! Little does she know!). I'm a little bit worried you will all be disappointed after all the anticipation, it's not that dramatic and was quite brief! It was just her entitlement and hostility, considering who she is. There's a bit of context for why I think I was targeted, but I will get to that later in the post. It feels like I should talk about court before talking about myself too much, so scroll down if you want to skip to Janet content - but don't get too excited, it's not that interesting! Much more "interesting" is the very well known trial watcher who has taken up residence in Janet's rectum, "looking after" her and managing to get themself in the position of being officially considered a "friend or family", so getting guaranteed front row seats in court.
Lucy... there is just so much to say I barely know where to start! Disregarding the quality of her answers for now, overall her performance has been more polished than last year. Last year she seemed like a cross between a teenager and a politician, using blatant, juvenile tactics like asking stupid pointless questions to stall for time, while being evasive and trying her utmost to give non-answers to everything. Her answers were very impulsive last year and she seemed like an imbecile.
This trial, she took her time to answer, was being extra careful to not paint herself into any corners (failing spectacularly, which I'll get to) and has reduced the stupid questions to only occasionally pretending she doesn't understand things she particularly doesn't want to answer. Also, she didn't cry at all on the stand. I'm wondering if this is because her parents aren't present to perform for, or because she was criticised last year by NJ for only crying for herself and not the victims. So I have still never seen her in snivel mode, she's been a poker-faced harpy every time I've seen her.
Last year, I was absolutely flabbergasted at her behaviour. She was so unshakably confident and unflappable, I had honestly never seen anybody like her. The way she would say two contradictory things at the same time, and give the most ridiculous answers with such complete confidence and conviction, makes you doubt your own mind at the words you're hearing and makes your brain think it must be reasonable somehow? She made her non-answers sound like proper answers just by using the tone of her voice to imply things she didn't actually say. You had to really listen to the content of what she was saying, rather than how she said it, which I do do due to my interest in statement analysis. But I could really tell how she could be convincing to some people.
She is pretty much the same this year, though it loses the effect somewhat when she becomes too hostile. It also loses the effect once you are used to her: she was my first time witnessing a female psychopath in action, but I'm desensitized to it now (if anyone's interested, listen to Beverley Allitt's police interviews on Daily Motion to experience similar chutzpah, and use of vocal intonations). Nevertheless, one of the jurors appeared transfixed by watching her, and I like to think they were just as dumbstruck as I first was.
Lucy wouldn't have had much feedback on her previous testimony; she has very little access to the internet, so wouldn't have seen the critical comments mocking her performance. Her only access to the outside world is limited phone calls with Mummy, Daddy, and maybe Janet, who will only tell Diddums what a great job she did and how they're all big meanie pants for not believing her. She was in a separate court, so wouldn't have heard the police laughing at her. Bowel Movement is not supposed to advise her on her giving testimony, so I wonder if her slight improvements came from attempts at self-reflection.
On the other hand, this time she made less effort to pretend to be polite, and was openly contemptuous and abrupt with NJ from the word go. I guess she doesn't need to worry about the outcome so much, so she's feeling less stressed and just being herself. She was really arrogant at points.
One example is when NJ was repeatedly questioning her and Lucy was failing to give a proper answer (as usual), Lucy responded by saying "We're going round in circles" as though it was his fault. She has no humility or shame whatsoever for the position she is in: a convicted serial baby killer on the stand for attacking another baby. It's as if she thinks it's her place to criticise him daring to question her, rather than her being in the position of somebody who really, really needs to account for herself.
Another is that she has a real thing about being briefly trained at Liverpool Women's Hospital.
Despite polishing her performance, her answers remained as ridiculous as ever. "I don't recall" and "I can't answer that" were repeated ad nauseum. Despite not recalling the entire event, she does recall that she didn't know Baby K was having an x-ray (proving her tube was in the correct position minutes before her second tube displacement). This was quite funny, she answered "no" then corrected to "I don't recall". NJ pulled her up on it, and she played it off, completely undaunted.
She also recalls that she was informed of Baby K's death within days of it happening; that she didn't see Baby K move on the night she doesn't recall; that the handover hadn't happened yet at her third tube displacement; that Baby K did have her given name before leaving the CoC; and that she doesn't recall why she Facebooked the K family surname of the family and baby who she doesn't recall.
She tried so hard to not paint herself into a corner that she ended up causing herself more trouble and tanking her defense. She utterly refused to commit to her defense statement that Dr Jayaram had it in for her and was not acting in good faith. She refused to say he was incorrect, fabricating, or whatever, only that she couldn't recall, and couldn't answer for Dr. Jayaram.
I don't really know why this is, but the fact she wouldn't stick to her defense statement obviously must be very important because both NJ and BM fixated on it in their questioning. The defense statement is that Dr J isn't acting in good faith, and she thinks this because of his previous conduct towards her. NJ tried to pin her down on exactly when he was not acting in good faith. She tried her best to be evasive and non-committal, but eventually said it refers to her grievance and his behaviour surrounding that whole situation. NJ questioned her repeatedly on this; she did change her answer a bit, but the grievance produce was her most regular answer.
This trial, she took her time to answer, was being extra careful to not paint herself into any corners (failing spectacularly, which I'll get to) and has reduced the stupid questions to only occasionally pretending she doesn't understand things she particularly doesn't want to answer. Also, she didn't cry at all on the stand. I'm wondering if this is because her parents aren't present to perform for, or because she was criticised last year by NJ for only crying for herself and not the victims. So I have still never seen her in snivel mode, she's been a poker-faced harpy every time I've seen her.
Last year, I was absolutely flabbergasted at her behaviour. She was so unshakably confident and unflappable, I had honestly never seen anybody like her. The way she would say two contradictory things at the same time, and give the most ridiculous answers with such complete confidence and conviction, makes you doubt your own mind at the words you're hearing and makes your brain think it must be reasonable somehow? She made her non-answers sound like proper answers just by using the tone of her voice to imply things she didn't actually say. You had to really listen to the content of what she was saying, rather than how she said it, which I do do due to my interest in statement analysis. But I could really tell how she could be convincing to some people.
She is pretty much the same this year, though it loses the effect somewhat when she becomes too hostile. It also loses the effect once you are used to her: she was my first time witnessing a female psychopath in action, but I'm desensitized to it now (if anyone's interested, listen to Beverley Allitt's police interviews on Daily Motion to experience similar chutzpah, and use of vocal intonations). Nevertheless, one of the jurors appeared transfixed by watching her, and I like to think they were just as dumbstruck as I first was.
Lucy wouldn't have had much feedback on her previous testimony; she has very little access to the internet, so wouldn't have seen the critical comments mocking her performance. Her only access to the outside world is limited phone calls with Mummy, Daddy, and maybe Janet, who will only tell Diddums what a great job she did and how they're all big meanie pants for not believing her. She was in a separate court, so wouldn't have heard the police laughing at her. Bowel Movement is not supposed to advise her on her giving testimony, so I wonder if her slight improvements came from attempts at self-reflection.
On the other hand, this time she made less effort to pretend to be polite, and was openly contemptuous and abrupt with NJ from the word go. I guess she doesn't need to worry about the outcome so much, so she's feeling less stressed and just being herself. She was really arrogant at points.
One example is when NJ was repeatedly questioning her and Lucy was failing to give a proper answer (as usual), Lucy responded by saying "We're going round in circles" as though it was his fault. She has no humility or shame whatsoever for the position she is in: a convicted serial baby killer on the stand for attacking another baby. It's as if she thinks it's her place to criticise him daring to question her, rather than her being in the position of somebody who really, really needs to account for herself.
Another is that she has a real thing about being briefly trained at Liverpool Women's Hospital.
Despite polishing her performance, her answers remained as ridiculous as ever. "I don't recall" and "I can't answer that" were repeated ad nauseum. Despite not recalling the entire event, she does recall that she didn't know Baby K was having an x-ray (proving her tube was in the correct position minutes before her second tube displacement). This was quite funny, she answered "no" then corrected to "I don't recall". NJ pulled her up on it, and she played it off, completely undaunted.
She also recalls that she was informed of Baby K's death within days of it happening; that she didn't see Baby K move on the night she doesn't recall; that the handover hadn't happened yet at her third tube displacement; that Baby K did have her given name before leaving the CoC; and that she doesn't recall why she Facebooked the K family surname of the family and baby who she doesn't recall.
She tried so hard to not paint herself into a corner that she ended up causing herself more trouble and tanking her defense. She utterly refused to commit to her defense statement that Dr Jayaram had it in for her and was not acting in good faith. She refused to say he was incorrect, fabricating, or whatever, only that she couldn't recall, and couldn't answer for Dr. Jayaram.
I don't really know why this is, but the fact she wouldn't stick to her defense statement obviously must be very important because both NJ and BM fixated on it in their questioning. The defense statement is that Dr J isn't acting in good faith, and she thinks this because of his previous conduct towards her. NJ tried to pin her down on exactly when he was not acting in good faith. She tried her best to be evasive and non-committal, but eventually said it refers to her grievance and his behaviour surrounding that whole situation. NJ questioned her repeatedly on this; she did change her answer a bit, but the grievance produce was her most regular answer.
The most obvious interpretation and inference of the defense statement is that Dr J is making shit up because he has it in for Lucy. That's it, that plus "I don't recall" is her defense.
In re-examination, BM questioned her repeatedly, desperately trying to lead her to saying the right thing: that the not-good faith also refers to the police interviews about her, not just the whole grievance thing in 2016. It was so blatantly obvious what he wanted her to say, but she just wasn't co-operating. She was as evasive with him as she was with NJ in refusing to get to the point.
BM lost his shit! He fucking shouted at her! He was getting so fucking frustrated, shouting MISS LETBY, EXPLAIN!! and trying to lead his horse to water but it just wouldn't fucking drink! He finally, finally pinned her down to the crux of the matter, a yes or no question: does it include the police interviews or not? She was so obviously supposed to say yes. But she said no. I swear I literally felt Ben Myers deflate in that moment. He just went silent then swiftly moved on to avoid drawing attention to it (lol).
It was the stand-out moment of her testimony for me, and I can't believe it wasn't conveyed in the reporting. Last year it was "I knew what I was looking for - at" and the dance-the-dance exchanges with NJ. This year it came courtesy of her own defense! What the fuck must the jury think of that?? I think Myers' anger just made her look even worse, because it's so fucked up for a defense barrister to be driven to shouting at his client like that.
What the fuck was she playing at???? I can only imagine that she thinks being consistent with her answers between NJ and BM will look good? But she's too arrogant to listen to her barrister: if he thinks it's important for her to say, there must be a reason for that, and she should have played ball. Lucy though she knew better.
Little Miss PTSD didn't flinch, by the way. I think Ben Myers has trouble containing his anger. It's a very unpleasant trait in a man. A lot of women would have been a rattled.
In re-examination, BM questioned her repeatedly, desperately trying to lead her to saying the right thing: that the not-good faith also refers to the police interviews about her, not just the whole grievance thing in 2016. It was so blatantly obvious what he wanted her to say, but she just wasn't co-operating. She was as evasive with him as she was with NJ in refusing to get to the point.
BM lost his shit! He fucking shouted at her! He was getting so fucking frustrated, shouting MISS LETBY, EXPLAIN!! and trying to lead his horse to water but it just wouldn't fucking drink! He finally, finally pinned her down to the crux of the matter, a yes or no question: does it include the police interviews or not? She was so obviously supposed to say yes. But she said no. I swear I literally felt Ben Myers deflate in that moment. He just went silent then swiftly moved on to avoid drawing attention to it (lol).
It was the stand-out moment of her testimony for me, and I can't believe it wasn't conveyed in the reporting. Last year it was "I knew what I was looking for - at" and the dance-the-dance exchanges with NJ. This year it came courtesy of her own defense! What the fuck must the jury think of that?? I think Myers' anger just made her look even worse, because it's so fucked up for a defense barrister to be driven to shouting at his client like that.
What the fuck was she playing at???? I can only imagine that she thinks being consistent with her answers between NJ and BM will look good? But she's too arrogant to listen to her barrister: if he thinks it's important for her to say, there must be a reason for that, and she should have played ball. Lucy though she knew better.
Little Miss PTSD didn't flinch, by the way. I think Ben Myers has trouble containing his anger. It's a very unpleasant trait in a man. A lot of women would have been a rattled.
So once again, Lucy has nuked her own defense into orbit by giving her tuppence worth:
I honestly thought that she had a good chance of getting away with it all, before she got on her broomstick and flew to the stand. I think the chances of conviction have increased from maybe 40% to 80%.
It's obvious she did it: that much is proven by timed computer records proving that she was at Baby K's cot side just before the collapse, while an x-ray minutes before showed the breathing tube was perfect before Lucy was there. The baby was definitely sedated for this.
However, the charge is only for the first desaturation; the second and third ones, the prosecution say, were just her attempts to make it look like there was a chronic problem with the tube after she was caught red handed during the first incident. The problem is, the first desaturation is basically Dr Jayaram's word vs Lucy's. Unfortunately, apparently Dr J didn't do a very good job on the stand and I've been told he was nervous, with BM giving him a really hard time. I believe Dr J, but there is a lot of potential for people to consider him not credible (thankfully, Lucy's made herself look even worse). Also the timeline for the first desaturation is very confusing, and the prosecution can't prove that the baby was given morphine beforehand, though it's a possibility.
The jury have to believe Dr J's account of the first breathing tube displacement is proven, and intent to kill is proven (this second bit is ticked off - thanks Lucifer!). I really hope the jury consider that the second incident is proven, which increases the likelihood of the first. I wish the second and third incidents were considered lesser charges in their own right.
- on Monday she admitted that displacing a breathing tube in a baby that age is deadly (satisfying the intent part of attempted murder)
- on both days she's contradicted her defense statement that Dr J is not acting in good faith
- she refuses to criticise Dr J or commit to anything regarding him
- she says she can't recall the whole thing even though she recalls some very specific bits
- she pretty much accepts a nurse's witness account that Lucy was the one to alert the third desaturation
- and, she's made an arse of herself on the stand.
I honestly thought that she had a good chance of getting away with it all, before she got on her broomstick and flew to the stand. I think the chances of conviction have increased from maybe 40% to 80%.
It's obvious she did it: that much is proven by timed computer records proving that she was at Baby K's cot side just before the collapse, while an x-ray minutes before showed the breathing tube was perfect before Lucy was there. The baby was definitely sedated for this.
However, the charge is only for the first desaturation; the second and third ones, the prosecution say, were just her attempts to make it look like there was a chronic problem with the tube after she was caught red handed during the first incident. The problem is, the first desaturation is basically Dr Jayaram's word vs Lucy's. Unfortunately, apparently Dr J didn't do a very good job on the stand and I've been told he was nervous, with BM giving him a really hard time. I believe Dr J, but there is a lot of potential for people to consider him not credible (thankfully, Lucy's made herself look even worse). Also the timeline for the first desaturation is very confusing, and the prosecution can't prove that the baby was given morphine beforehand, though it's a possibility.
The jury have to believe Dr J's account of the first breathing tube displacement is proven, and intent to kill is proven (this second bit is ticked off - thanks Lucifer!). I really hope the jury consider that the second incident is proven, which increases the likelihood of the first. I wish the second and third incidents were considered lesser charges in their own right.
It bears repeating that Lucy is now a hag. Last year she looked a bit plain and haggard, but now she's a full-blown unfortunate. Her police interviews were played again on Tuesday and I was once again still shocked at the change in appearance. In court, you can only see her from the side, and there are TV screens showing her from the front, so it switches straight from seeing a double-chinned, googly-eyed, saggy-lipped, droopy-lidded crone, to the pretty young woman she was just a few years ago, and back again. I have never seen someone lose their looks so completely in such a short space of time.
Her eyes are so weird. They are droopy, wonky, heavy-lidded, deeply recessed into her skull, blinking and rolling about all over the place. Her lids are so droopy they make her eyes look half-closed from the side, which makes them look like the eyes of a newly dead person.
It must be hard to go from being decent-looking to outright ugly in just a few years, and to lose whatever interpersonal benefits she was used to receiving. Having said that, she seems to think the sun shines out of her own arse and doesn't care about anything. She wasn't self conscious about unleashing the Nigel Farage frog throat whenever she tilted her head down, an action which would also cause her mouth to pucker.
Her eyes are so weird. They are droopy, wonky, heavy-lidded, deeply recessed into her skull, blinking and rolling about all over the place. Her lids are so droopy they make her eyes look half-closed from the side, which makes them look like the eyes of a newly dead person.
It must be hard to go from being decent-looking to outright ugly in just a few years, and to lose whatever interpersonal benefits she was used to receiving. Having said that, she seems to think the sun shines out of her own arse and doesn't care about anything. She wasn't self conscious about unleashing the Nigel Farage frog throat whenever she tilted her head down, an action which would also cause her mouth to pucker.
I had a two horrible moments in court which led to being told off by ushers. One was when I tried to drink from my part-used water bottle. It was a very thin plastic material with a pull-up lid, and when I opened it, it suctioned air in and de-crumpled with a very loud CRACK, that was apparently heard on the audio in the satellite court (Miss PTSD didn't flicker at this, or any other loud noise). It was so embarrassing, the last thing anyone wants is cause any disturbance. The usher GLARED at me for two minutes straight. I don't know what he hoped to achieve, there was nothing I could do after the event. The other one is when a break was called, before the public had been let out (you're supposed to wait to be released), the woman positioned next to me said "excuse me" relatively loudly for the situation, and tried to get by. I stood up to let her pass and thought she might have an emergency. She was told by other observers she needed to wait, and sat back down. The court staff were scoffing and judgmental about this mistake. I think I was considered as somebody who was also trying to leave ahead of time, rather than somebody letting someone else pass. I got told off (or really, pulled to one side and had polite words with) for these some time after they happened.
I didn't see the other woman come back. They were excessively harsh about in innocent mistake from somebody who didn't know the court system. It's not like they tell you much about the in-out protocols, you're mostly just expected to know. Also, the mistake didn't actually cause any real problems. I think she might not have come back because she was embarrassed, which is a shame.
There is a general aura of unwelcomeness for trial watchers, I could feel right from the beginning that we are not wanted there. I think this might be because the place is swarming with Lucy's fans, so there's probably an assumption that all court watchers are of that persuasion. I had to keep reminding myself that being able to observe court is an essential part of open justice, and that I have every right to be there.
I felt very conspicuous because of the aforementioned incidents, and also because I am visibly autistic, plus was mostly sitting diagonally as one of my eyes is very short sighted.
I didn't see the other woman come back. They were excessively harsh about in innocent mistake from somebody who didn't know the court system. It's not like they tell you much about the in-out protocols, you're mostly just expected to know. Also, the mistake didn't actually cause any real problems. I think she might not have come back because she was embarrassed, which is a shame.
There is a general aura of unwelcomeness for trial watchers, I could feel right from the beginning that we are not wanted there. I think this might be because the place is swarming with Lucy's fans, so there's probably an assumption that all court watchers are of that persuasion. I had to keep reminding myself that being able to observe court is an essential part of open justice, and that I have every right to be there.
I felt very conspicuous because of the aforementioned incidents, and also because I am visibly autistic, plus was mostly sitting diagonally as one of my eyes is very short sighted.
So after a break, in the corridor, I was talking to an older NG man about Lucy's performance and was saying what had improved since last year. (I had previously talked to him in the morning, establishing - like all the new NGs - he had not actually followed the previous trial, and I had said how it all looked much worse for her evidence-wise during that trial, which surprised him). Anyway I think the bits I mentioned were less impulsivity, and less pointless questions. I was in the middle of the corridor, and Janet was facing me, though I wasn't paying her any attention. She suddenly confronted me, saying something like "if you want to talk, can you do it somewhere else" in an angry/upset/anxious tone. I said something like I'm allowed to talk in the corridor. She repeated something like what she previously said, but added something like "keep your voice down because it's not appropriate". I again stated " I am talking in the corridor, are we not allowed to talk in corridors?" which she didn't answer. I'm not sure what she did next and I resumed talking to the NG.
I felt really curtailed in what I could say because I didn't know for sure if Janet would be given any special considerations as a friend of the defendant, plus I was on the backfoot after the previous court problems and didn't want to risk being kicked out. I wanted to say, "what is your authority to be telling me what to do?" She was so entitled to think it's her place to tell anyone else off! Who the fuck does she think she is, she's just a fool who's ruining her own life to prostrate herself to a serial baby killer.
I was really butthurt about her mentioning "keep your voice down" because I have an unfortunate voice and have had non-stop mistreatment and judgement for it since I was 12. It is a physical fact that high-pitched voices are perceived as louder at the same decibels as regular voices (this is because each cilia in the ear collects sounds at specific frequencies, and in a nutshell the cilia collect more sound waves of a high pitched frequency, so it becomes amplified in the ear) so I'm always being silenced, despite speaking normally. It also stands out and is heard above all other voices. I think Janet was gone by this point, while I was bending the ear of the NG about this, suspecting this was why Janet targeted me as opposed to anyone else in the corridor speaking about her queen.
In hindsight I think she might have also known I was an easy target because of the things mentioned in the previous section. More importantly, I had previously spoken to her new bestie about Lucy in front of her. Which leads me to this whole other strange situation:
I felt really curtailed in what I could say because I didn't know for sure if Janet would be given any special considerations as a friend of the defendant, plus I was on the backfoot after the previous court problems and didn't want to risk being kicked out. I wanted to say, "what is your authority to be telling me what to do?" She was so entitled to think it's her place to tell anyone else off! Who the fuck does she think she is, she's just a fool who's ruining her own life to prostrate herself to a serial baby killer.
I was really butthurt about her mentioning "keep your voice down" because I have an unfortunate voice and have had non-stop mistreatment and judgement for it since I was 12. It is a physical fact that high-pitched voices are perceived as louder at the same decibels as regular voices (this is because each cilia in the ear collects sounds at specific frequencies, and in a nutshell the cilia collect more sound waves of a high pitched frequency, so it becomes amplified in the ear) so I'm always being silenced, despite speaking normally. It also stands out and is heard above all other voices. I think Janet was gone by this point, while I was bending the ear of the NG about this, suspecting this was why Janet targeted me as opposed to anyone else in the corridor speaking about her queen.
In hindsight I think she might have also known I was an easy target because of the things mentioned in the previous section. More importantly, I had previously spoken to her new bestie about Lucy in front of her. Which leads me to this whole other strange situation:
So a pro-guilty trial watcher has gained entry into Janet's inner circle and become her confidant. Allegedly, Janet is "vulnerable" and this person is officially supporting them. This enables the trial watcher to enter court first with "friends and family", and to gain inside knowledge about the Letby's. All the other trial watcher stalwarts are pretending to not know each other to facilitate this, creating a very weird atmosphere.
I don't know myself whether Janet is "vulnerable" as I didn't see much of her aside from that altercation. However, she is at the very least a complete fool who is easy to mug off. It is possible to be both an entitled cunt, and vulnerable. If it's true that she is vulnerable, then I personally disapprove of the deception.
I don't know myself whether Janet is "vulnerable" as I didn't see much of her aside from that altercation. However, she is at the very least a complete fool who is easy to mug off. It is possible to be both an entitled cunt, and vulnerable. If it's true that she is vulnerable, then I personally disapprove of the deception.
The NGs
I spoke to a lot of the NGs, and actually liked a few of them. Some fit the stereotypes, and some don't - I think the mainstream media articles have done one hell of a lot of damage. I will save the NGs for another post, because this is already too long.
---
I also met some fellow Tattlers @Wine o'clock, @Dolly Daydream, a couple who don't have usernames, and of course @SarahG300 back last year.
I hope he knows that he’s still a hero. Reminded me of the video I watched of him receiving a letter from a patient of his.
xx johnson is on form!!! Xx
…..
xx
